## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ**
**TUESDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 27TH CHAITHRA, 1946 OP (FC) NO. 265 OF 2024**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPHMA NO.1670 OF 2022 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM PETITIONER/S:**
**ANOOP MOHAN, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. MOHANACHANDRAN, ROSE GARDENS, CHARAMANGALAM, MUHAMMA P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN688525. REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MOHANACHANDRAN, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O. GANGHADHARA MENON, ROSE GARDENS, MUHAMMA P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688525**
**BY ADVS. V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ M.P.MOHAMMED FAZIL SHEREEF J. AUGNES LOVELY FRANCIS**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
**ASWATHY RAJU, AGED 39 YEARS D/O V.G.RAJU, VARIKKAT HOUSE, KARAPPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686039**
**THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
-2-
O.P.(FC) No. 265 of 2024
## **JUDGMENT**
Dated this the 16[th] day of April, 2024
## P.M.Manoj, J.
The above original petition is preferred by the petitioner in O.P.(HMA) No.1670 of 2022 before the Family Court, Kottayam. The original petition was filed under Sections 13 (1) (ia) and 30 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, for dissolution of marriage, which was solemnized on 12.09.2010 between the petitioner and the respondent.
2. The petitioner and respondent are employed in Singapore. During the marital relation, one girl child named Nivedya Anoop was born. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was working at Bangalore and the respondent was pursuing her post graduation and at the instance of the petitioner, the respondent also secured a job. Thereafter, they settled at Bangalore by owning a flat. Thereafter, differences of opinion arose between them. On obtaining a better job at Hongkong, the petitioner shifted to Hongkong along with the respondent
-3-
O.P.(FC) No. 265 of 2024
and the child. That resulted in unemployment of the respondent and finally ended in fight with each other. As a compromise to settle the issues, the petitioner has to quit his job at Hongkong and accepted a job at Singapore. Thereafter, in the year 2019, the respondent underwent a surgery and came back to Singapore on 08.12.2019. The parents of the petitioner took care of her during the period of treatment. Thereafter also, the respondent totally neglected the petitioner and was not ready to live with him anymore. Under such circumstances, the petitioner preferred O.P.(HMA) 662 of 2022 before the Family Court, Alappuzha as evidenced by Ext.P1.
3. On knowing the institution of litigation, the respondent sent their daughter to India in June, 2022 without the consent of the petitioner and filed a complaint before the Singapore police in the year 2022 alleging domestic violence and it was found to be false and referred the case. Thereafter, she preferred a complaint before the Family Justice Court, Singapore alleging domestic violence and for personal protection. That was also dismissed with costs. Then, on
-4-
O.P.(FC) No. 265 of 2024
receiving notice in O.P.(HMA) of 662 of 2022 from the Family Court, Alappuzha, the respondent preferred O.P.(G&W) No.1078 of 2022 before the Family Court, Ettumanoor through her Power of Attorney. Thereafter, she preferred a petition for maintenance before the Family Justice Court of the Republic of Singapore. That was also dismissed.
4. Though there is no interim order to pay maintenance in O.P.(G&W) No.1078 of 2022, the petitioner paid Rs.10,000/per month as maintenance to the child since December, 2022. Though in O.P.(G&W) No.1078 of 2022 the respondent stated that the daughter is studying in Kerala, she was taken to Singapore without intimating the petitioner while the petitioner was permitted to have the interim custody at his house at Muhamma on every second Saturdays. Thereafter, she preferred another maintenance petition before the Family Court of Justice at Singapore as per Ext.P3 and that was allowed by directing the petitioner to pay $ 3,000/- (Singapore Dollar) as maintenance to the child.
-5-
O.P.(FC) No. 265 of 2024
5. In the meanwhile, the respondent preferred a transfer petition before the Family Court, Alappuzha to transfer O.P. (HMA) No.662 of 2022 to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. That was allowed and numbered as O.P.(HMA) No.1670 of 2022. The petitioner appeared before the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor and the case was adjourned on several occasions and on 11.10.2023, the case was sent for mediation and posted to 11.04.2024 for mediation report. It is stated in the original petition that the attempt for mediation was failed and both the petitioner and the respondent are living in Singapore. It is alleged by the petitioner that the different tactics by the respondent to delay the disposal of O.P.(HMA ) No.1670 of 2022 pending before the Family Court, Kottayam at Etumannor, would adversely affect his career prospectus in Singapore. Hence, seeking for a direction to dispose of O.P. (HMA) No. 1670 of 2022, the above OP(FC) is filed.
6. However, in the light of **Shiju Joy A. v. Nisha [2021 (2) KHC 462],** the Registry noted a defect and directed to file a petition before the Family Court concerned. Accordingly, the
-6-
O.P.(FC) No. 265 of 2024
petitioner preferred IA No.3 of 2024, which is produced along with IA No.1 of 2024 in O.P.(FC) No.265 of 2024 and seeking for a direction for an early disposal of IA No.3 of 2024 within three months.
7. We have considered the contentions raised by the counsel Sri.V.P.Mohammed Niyaz.
8. In **Shiju Joy** (supra), this Court has formulated guidelines to be borne in mind by the Family Court for prompt and expeditious consideration of matters. It was observed therein that merely because a litigant has reasons or the resources to approach this Court for speedy justice, the same cannot be at the peril of those adhering to the queue. It was also observed that the ritualistic passing of directions for speedy disposal of proceedings is doing more harm than good to the system because contested and deserving cases are being left unattended and the procedure framed by the Family Courts for disposal of cases is getting unsettled. Untimely interventions are clogging the system.
-7-
O.P.(FC) No. 265 of 2024
9. In that view of the matter, the only relief that can be granted to the petitioner is to consider the application filed by the petitioner in the light of observations in **Shiju Joy** (supra).
Having considered the facts and circumstances and the submissions advanced, this Original Petition is disposed of directing the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to consider the prayers in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in the light of the observations in **Shiju Joy** (supra), and initiate appropriate steps to expedite the matter after attaining a logical conclusion at the earliest.
Sd/-
**N.NAGARESH JUDGE**
**sd/P.M.MANOJ JUDGE**
das
-8-
## O.P.(FC) No. 265 of 2024
## **APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 265/2024**
## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS**
**Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P (HMA) NO.1670/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR DATED 14.6.2022**
**Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-10-2022 IN SS 1101/2022 OF FAMILY JUSTICE COURTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE**
**Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-01-2024 IN MSS 2644/2023 OF FAMILY JUSTICE COURTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE**
**Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO.3/2024 IN O.P (HMA) NO.1670/2022 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR DATED 1.4.2024**
